Class 37, by Accurascale

[newbryford]

8 minutes ago, 55020 said:

As E100 states above, new models are stretching the capability of decoders to the limit.  I have an SLW "Scotttish" 24 on pre-order and I would be pleasently surprised if I could take out the OEM supplied Zimo decoder, throw in an ESU one and have everything work the same!  Accurascale have even gone the extra mile and provide a very cost effective "plug n' play" solution by offering both LokPilot and LokSound pre-configured decoders for sale on their website.

 

Good luck!

 

 

Steve

 

IIRC, the original SLW Class 24 had a "dedicated" Zimo decoder, but a similarly re-mapped ESU one was later made available from 3rd part suppliers.

i.e. It wasn't plug n play.

 

It's not necessarily all the manufacturers fault for pushing the limits - consumer pressure for every bell and whistle to be included is also to be considered.

[Bryn_Bach_Railway]

12 minutes ago, 55020 said:

As E100 states above, new models are stretching the capability of decoders to the limit.  I have an SLW "Scotttish" 24 on pre-order and I would be pleasently surprised if I could take out the OEM supplied Zimo decoder, throw in an ESU one and have everything work the same!  Accurascale have even gone the extra mile and provide a very cost effective "plug n' play" solution by offering both LokPilot and LokSound pre-configured decoders for sale on their website.

if a model is made following the DCC standard, any 21 pin chip with enough functions should work. The problem here seems to be with the extra functions that only esu can use, and the face that some of these are what would be classed as core functions to most (some directional lighting aspects) but also the fact that it seems to be braking other functions for non esu decoders too. At the end of the day if adding extra features such as dial lights or engine room lights is going to lead to a situation where only ESU chips can operate all standard functions, then it’s time to question if those features are needed. Or if they can be controlled by a different method (magnetic wand etc). There’s no problem with accurascale working with ESU for the model. Cavalex have for their 56. But all features are on function ports accessible to any 10 function decoder. 

[Bryn_Bach_Railway]

The problem isn’t that the decoder of choice isn’t working out of the box and straight in the loco, and it’s already been stated that with loads of functions on modern models any decoder will likely need programming and re-mapping. The problem is that even after the decoder is being reprogrammed to use the function ports that the lights are apparently on, it’s still not working. And even if it was, some functions that are required for normal running are placed outside of the normal 10 functions another DCC decoder could access, but novelty features are accessible which is backwards.

[ruggedpeak]

37 minutes ago, E100 said:

I think it's quite understandable that as a new manufacturer they would outsource the electronics to ESU as this removes so much hard work and I don't think anyone would deny they along with Zimo are the two major players nowadays. It's also a dammed if they do dammed if they don't situation as the number of lighting combinations and other features is rapidly exceeding what most medium to high end decoders can handle i.e. more than 6 functions but they still want to push the boundaries of what's possible. I don't think they should be shot down for that.

 

However, I do wonder aloud if a bit more oversight of future projects for which features go on which functions by Accurascale (and indeed other manufacturers in a similar position) to enable the best compatibility for the expected core features on future projects would be a prudent step. This is especially in light of some more advanced features being exclusive to a certain brand or for example ABC performance. This also does help to better future proof the model against one manufacturer going under and taking their IP with them since with the lifetime warranty extension I hope to be running my stock well beyond the 2050's!

100%

 

The issues here are entirely normal for 'tech' of all sorts. Worthy of a discussion in the DCC section if its not already there, custom v standard compliant etc. This issue is not limited to Accura or their 37's. Pushing the hardware and software creates risks but is how tech moves forward. All very much BAU for anyone familiar with digital tech.

 

Ask the manufacturer of a smartphone, TV, car or whatever for the detailed programming details of their tech and you will get short shrift. However someone somewhere independent of the manufacturer will have (legally or illegally!) figured it out and how to play with it. Same with model train DCC tech.  Expecting personal consultancy on the proprietary technical details is a bit much in my view.

[Bryn_Bach_Railway]

3 minutes ago, ruggedpeak said:

Ask the manufacturer of a smartphone, TV, car or whatever for the detailed programming details of their tech and you will get short shrift. However someone somewhere independent of the manufacturer will have (legally or illegally!) figured it out and how to play with it. Same with model train DCC tech.  Expecting personal consultancy on the proprietary technical details is a bit much in my view.

The difference there is most detailed programming details for those examples are not based off a standard. And so makes sense that you wouldn’t be able to access it easily. 

 

However the 21 pin interface is a standard. And Accurascale and ESU, have expanded on the standard (great for ESU users) but it seems to have been done in a way that makes it non-standard for core features. If it was the engine room lights and dial lights not accessible, then that’s fair enough. But that fact that it’s featured needed for normal running is not ok. And the fact that the extra functionality seems to be affecting the normal standard. 

[BR Blue]

It is not the case that any 21 function decoder should work for all features of every model, it can only work as far as the DCC standards go and the DCC standards only go so far.  With all the extra features the market is demanding and the innovations that model manufactures are implementing, the standard has to be extended. There is allowance in the standard for this but individual DCC manufactures (ESU, Zimo etc) can implement their own enhancements.

 

It is stated by the model manufacturers what system that are using - ESU (Accurascale, Cavalex). Zimo (SLW). People might have preferences for one over the other. However swapping an ESU chip into an enhanced system advertised as designed for Zimo and vice versa, and expecting everything to work identically and out of the box is unrealistic. In many cases it can be made to work but it requires a lot of effort. If someone wants to do that it is up to them.

 

Personally, I am quite happy leaving the chip in the loco it was designed for. You would not buy a car from Ford and put a Renault engine in it.

 

[spamcan61]

2 minutes ago, BR Blue said:

It is not the case that any 21 function decoder should work for all features of every model, it can only work as far as the DCC standards go and the DCC standards only go so far.  With all the extra features the market is demanding and the innovations that model manufactures are implementing, the standard has to be extended. There is allowance in the standard for this but individual DCC manufactures (ESU, Zimo etc) can implement their own enhancements.

 

It is stated by the model manufacturers what system that are using - ESU (Accurascale, Cavalex). Zimo (SLW). People might have preferences for one over the other. However swapping an ESU chip into an enhanced system advertised as designed for Zimo and vice versa, and expecting everything to work identically and out of the box is unrealistic. In many cases it can be made to work but it requires a lot of effort. If someone wants to do that it is up to them.

 

Personally, I am quite happy leaving the chip in the loco it was designed for. You would not buy a car from Ford and put a Renault engine in it.

 

 

The point being made though is that the 'basic' functions should work with any 21 pin DCC chip, whereas it seems that they don't. I don't recall seeing any info on the packaging for AS or Cavalex ' DCC ready' products pointing out that life could get complicated if you fit a non custom chip.

[E100]

Ok, I think it might be time to draw a line under this as I think the same point has now been made in a number of different ways and I think whilst ideally it wouldn't have happened, it has and they aren't realistically about to do a full redesign of the circuit board to change things overnight. I'm very sympathetic to your struggles though and I agree with your logic of putting the core functions on the most readily accessible features. Accurascale have shown time and again that they are willing to learn and listen to feedback and I'm sure this will be taken on board for future releases so lets give them a chance to learn from this. 

 

In the meantime perhaps take your DCC woes to the DCC part of the forum, not least as they may be of use in a much wider context than just this model.

 

I'll leave this little beauty here for some inspiration for the Accurascale guys to also look into 😜

 

(Pinterest)

[55020]

1 minute ago, E100 said:

I'll leave this little beauty here for some inspiration for the Accurascale guys to also look into 😜

 

 

Yes please, I'll take one.  It might just go nuclear 😎

 

 

Steve

 

 

[Bryn_Bach_Railway]

7 minutes ago, BR Blue said:

It is not the case that any 21 function decoder should work for all features of every model, it can only work as far as the DCC standards go and the DCC standards only go so far.  With all the extra features the market is demanding and the innovations that model manufactures are implementing, the standard has to be extended. There is allowance in the standard for this but individual DCC manufactures (ESU, Zimo etc) can implement their own enhancements.

Any high end 10 function chip should be able to operate the functions for head and tail lights, plus the first 10 function outputs. That is the standard. Any innovation beyond this standard should not affect this. And if that’s not possible then maybe it’s time manufacturers start looking to make a new standard with more features available. Or use other methods to operate non-essential features. 

[BR Blue]

5 minutes ago, spamcan61 said:

 

The point being made though is that the 'basic' functions should work with any 21 pin DCC chip, whereas it seems that they don't. I don't recall seeing any info on the packaging for AS or Cavalex ' DCC ready' products pointing out that life could get complicated if you fit a non custom chip.

I can see the merit in that approach alright. I suppose people will debate what is "basic"

[woodenhead]

From my limited understanding outside of the Accurascale (and others) bubble over here in N Land, what this looks like to me is an Apple product type problem.

 

With Apple you bought the product i.e. the phone but you needed a very specific connection to charge it and other products had to be designed around Apple to work with Apple.

 

So in that respect if you want an all singing all dancing Accurascale loco then you needed to purchase within the Accurascale ecospere i.e. the chip and the speakers otherwise you are going to be disappointed.  And the reason is because customers asked for features that needed extra functionality out of the technology and ESU have been tasked with doing that, which they did in a manner that ended up bespoke to Accurascale PCBs.

 

But the problem is that modellers have gotten used to buying a base loco then adding chips and sound themselves.  There is a whole aftermarket for this and when a loco comes along with lots of features, more than the usual, then they expect to be able to still go to the aftermarket and purchase stuff from their favourite chip/speaker/sound supplier and it just work.

 

If Accurascale were charging off the scale for the all singing all dancing versions I could understand people might want to vent, but they're not so I'd be quite happy to purchase the all singing dancing version in the first place than try and mimic it with after market products.

 

It's not that you can't do it, it's just not quite the same experience at the end.

 

Me, I have to find space in tiny locos to get a fraction of the Accurascale sound and light experience.

[Bryn_Bach_Railway]

1 minute ago, BR Blue said:

I can see the merit in that approach alright. I suppose people will debate what is "basic"

Anything needed for protypical operation would seem basic to me

[GordonC]

5 minutes ago, woodenhead said:

From my limited understanding outside of the Accurascale (and others) bubble over here in N Land, what this looks like to me is an Apple product type problem.

 

With Apple you bought the product i.e. the phone but you needed a very specific connection to charge it and other products had to be designed around Apple to work with Apple.

 

So in that respect if you want an all singing all dancing Accurascale loco then you needed to purchase within the Accurascale ecospere i.e. the chip and the speakers otherwise you are going to be disappointed.  And the reason is because customers asked for features that needed extra functionality out of the technology and ESU have been tasked with doing that, which they did in a manner that ended up bespoke to Accurascale PCBs.

 

But the problem is that modellers have gotten used to buying a base loco then adding chips and sound themselves.  There is a whole aftermarket for this and when a loco comes along with lots of features, more than the usual, then they expect to be able to still go to the aftermarket and purchase stuff from their favourite chip/speaker/sound supplier and it just work.

 

If Accurascale were charging off the scale for the all singing all dancing versions I could understand people might want to vent, but they're not so I'd be quite happy to purchase the all singing dancing version in the first place than try and mimic it with after market products.

 

It's not that you can't do it, it's just not quite the same experience at the end.

 

Me, I have to find space in tiny locos to get a fraction of the Accurascale sound and light experience.

 

The only thing I would say is that sometimes a bit of variation in the sound recordings from different sources can be good with multiples of the same type on a layout. There could always be variations in prototype locos sound if one is running well/roughly/needing maintenance

 

If all AS 37s get directed to use AS chips, and with the same speakers then they'll all sound exactly the same

[ruggedpeak]

47 minutes ago, Bryn_Bach_Railway said:

The difference there is most detailed programming details for those examples are not based off a standard. And so makes sense that you wouldn’t be able to access it easily. 

 

However the 21 pin interface is a standard. And Accurascale and ESU, have expanded on the standard (great for ESU users) but it seems to have been done in a way that makes it non-standard for core features. If it was the engine room lights and dial lights not accessible, then that’s fair enough. But that fact that it’s featured needed for normal running is not ok. And the fact that the extra functionality seems to be affecting the normal standard. 

Going round in circles. And yes, the examples are based off common standards, for example in cars this is a legal requirement so that diagnostics can be carried out, for smartphones they have to adhere to standards for Apple or Android etc. Within that are oddities and exceptions, as the emissions scandal showed.

 

I will say it again, if you are genuinely concerned about this issue, raise it in the DCC section. There are more likely to be people there who can help you.

 

34 minutes ago, spamcan61 said:

 

The point being made though is that the 'basic' functions should work with any 21 pin DCC chip, whereas it seems that they don't. I don't recall seeing any info on the packaging for AS or Cavalex ' DCC ready' products pointing out that life could get complicated if you fit a non custom chip.

That is perhaps the crux of the issue. You have got it back to front.

 

AS provided a clear spec for the model and delivered it. For reasons best known to themselves some people have decided that AS models must comply with an ad hoc specification they personally decided upon, despite AS (and indeed other manufacturers) never having suggested they would do. Somehow some have decided that AS are at fault for not doing something they never suggested they would do. Your logic is flawed and expectations are not aligned with the reality of digital tech or the product.

 

If someone wants a guarantee that all DCC systems are 100% compatible across all brands then purchase a 37 or other loco from whichever model manfacturer offers that 100% compatibility guarantee.

 

If anyone thinks that the model train digital sector is going have 100% compatibilty in the future then they are going to be very disappointed. Compatibility is a nice aspiration but delivering high spec digital within tech and cost envelopes means compromise, and that applies all digital sectors.

 

 

Edited February 2 by ruggedpeak
typo

[Bryn_Bach_Railway]

2 minutes ago, woodenhead said:

So in that respect if you want an all singing all dancing Accurascale loco then you needed to purchase within the Accurascale ecospere i.e. the chip and the speakers otherwise you are going to be disappointed.  And the reason is because customers asked for features that needed extra functionality out of the technology and ESU have been tasked with doing that, which they did in a manner that ended up bespoke to Accurascale PCBs.

The extra features are not the problem, it’s where they’ve been placed and where other more required features are. And the fact that the enabling of extra features seems to be disabling basic features for non-esu.

 

if a model is made with a standard interface, then that standard should come first. We all want extra features but not at the expense of non-standard wiring. Making everyone use ESU might be fine for most now. But what happens if ESU go out of business? Or stop making 21 pin decoders for whatever reason. Then everyone who didn’t already have these models DCC fitted is in the same boat.

 

as for Apple, when you buy them you know certain features are non-standard. But they are also not listed to be following a standard either.

[woodenhead]

Just now, GordonC said:

 

The only thing I would say is that sometimes a bit of variation in the sound recordings from different sources can be good with multiples of the same type on a layout. There could always be variations in prototype locos sound if one is running well/roughly/needing maintenance

 

If all AS 37s get directed to use AS chips, and with the same speakers then they'll all sound exactly the same

Didn't the Planet Industrials Victory have that in the sound model - there were variations in condition so could also have a clapped out sound?

 

So in this case it would be Accurascale finding some poorly 37s to add to the recording database.

[55020]

1 minute ago, GordonC said:

If all AS 37s get directed to use AS chips, and with the same speakers then they'll all sound exactly the same

 

Charlie and Bif (DCKits) have delivered a solution for the Accurascale models, is anyone wants a different sound file.

[ruggedpeak]

19 minutes ago, E100 said:

(Pinterest)

I'd like a full set of 3726x models from their Scottish period please!

 

Only issue is that 37264, for example, in large logo livery 37264 had multiple versions with Scottie Dog or Highland Stag logos, extra headlight in different positions etc etc!!! Obviously we will need all variants 🤣

Edited February 2 by ruggedpeak

[Bucoops]

6 minutes ago, Bryn_Bach_Railway said:

Anything needed for protypical operation would seem basic to me

 

That's a bit wishful thinking - even Accurascale don't have every feature for prototypical operation. Where's the working Blue Star multiple working?

 

Back to "general" DCC - it's a standard that allows individual enhancements. Topical at the moment, this is what it says on a Hatton's decoder package - "All our decoders conform to NMRA and NEM standards and are produced to the highest quality standards. They also include many unique features and are tailored for the best performance straight from the box". My emphasis.

 

Back to multiple working. Now *that* would be cool! Yes I know DCC has consisting.

[woodenhead]

2 minutes ago, Bryn_Bach_Railway said:

The extra features are not the problem, it’s where they’ve been placed and where other more required features are. And the fact that the enabling of extra features seems to be disabling basic features for non-esu.

 

if a model is made with a standard interface, then that standard should come first. We all want extra features but not at the expense of non-standard wiring. Making everyone use ESU might be fine for most now. But what happens if ESU go out of business? Or stop making 21 pin decoders for whatever reason. Then everyone who didn’t already have these models DCC fitted is in the same boat.

 

as for Apple, when you buy them you know certain features are non-standard. But they are also not listed to be following a standard either.

What if Accurascale go out of business, what if model railways become too expensive, what if other chip companies fail or other retailers.  All sorts of things could happen in the future and if something happens it happens.

 

Someone else will step in no doubt, as someone has intimated Charlie and Biff already have an alternative sound file, it would not be beyond their capability to map out a full chip for an Accurascale if the market was there, and I am sure there are others too capable.

[Bryn_Bach_Railway]

1 minute ago, woodenhead said:

What if Accurascale go out of business, what if model railways become too expensive, what if other chip companies fail or other retailers.  All sorts of things could happen in the future and if something happens it happens.

If models were made to follow the standard properly. Then accurascale going out of buisness would not have an affect, would be undoubtedly a very sad time however. Some goes for other chips. If the standard is followed then any chip with enough functions should work. It’s only a concern now that these models are not working with the standard. 
 

5 minutes ago, Bucoops said:

 

That's a bit wishful thinking - even Accurascale don't have every feature for prototypical operation. Where's the working Blue Star multiple working?

I should’ve been more clear here I admit. I was referring to the lighting functions. Any needed for standard prototypical running should be classed as basic functions. 

[37081LochLong]

This thread is quickly becoming "one mans problem page" can we please move on?

[ruggedpeak]

Still don't understand why this DCC debate is happening here, it is a hobby wide issue limited to those who want to do their own custom thing on models, and it affects many manufacturers and models, not just the AS 37.

 

If you still want to discuss it please move it to the DCC Section.

 

11 minutes ago, woodenhead said:

What if Accurascale go out of business, what if model railways become too expensive, what if other chip companies fail or other retailers.  All sorts of things could happen in the future and if something happens it happens.

 

Someone else will step in no doubt, as someone has intimated Charlie and Biff already have an alternative sound file, it would not be beyond their capability to map out a full chip for an Accurascale if the market was there, and I am sure there are others too capable.

With reportedly 18,000 AS 37 model's (plus all the other AS models with presumably similar systems) in circulation there is highly likely to be digital aftermarket support for them and worthwhile for the likes of Charlie and Biff to support it. I have little doubt that they can or already have figured out the full system.

 

Edited February 2 by ruggedpeak
typo

[LNERandBR]

Agreed, I'd rather the speculation started about when the next run could be due or the what could be announced in the Third run of locomotives then see more of these messages.  
 

3 minutes ago, 37081LochLong said:

This thread is quickly becoming "one mans problem page" can we please move on?